E-Cigarette and Vaping, For and Against

[HeyYou]

 

 

Also, I note the distinct absence of anything to substantiate your claim on the Missouri man. As I can't find anything about that type of incident, at all, it leads me to believe that you are pulling a Trump, and inventing your own version of reality.

 

It appears that you don't like the taste of your own medicine. You are objectively a serial offender when it comes to not posting sources to substantiate your claims, even when you are politely asked to and even when it would improve the quality of the discussion.

 

What's worse is that you routinely ignore or casually dismiss sources posted by someone else in support of their points if they contradict your opinion.

 

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

 

Well, lets have a look at his claim then. He claims the event in question happened in the 70's, (I do believe) and it was the driving factor behind a smoking ban in parking structures. However, looking at various state laws on this topic, for the most part, they weren't put into place until late in the first decade of the 21st century. Seems to me, that waiting 30 plus years to implement a law, implies that the event did NOT, in fact, have any influence whatever on those laws.

 

Also, you can flick a lit cigarette into a pool of gasoline, and it will put the cigarette out, not start a fire. Unless conditions are 'just right'..... No fire. No explosion. Nothing. A quick hiss, and the cigarette is out.

 

And then we also have the dramatic changes in automotive fuel system designs in those 30 years. Gas tanks, up until the mid 70's, were freely vented into the atmosphere, then emissions laws came along, and that was no longer allowed. Vapor recovery systems appeared, and the fuel system became a closed system. Vapors were captured, and then later vented into the engines intake, and burned off. So, the likelihood of there being sufficient gasoline vapor in the air to ignite, are vanishingly small. If the system is not working properly, the vehicles computer will notify the operator, and in states that have inspections, you are REQUIRED to have it repaired, or, stop driving that particular vehicle. (unable to renew registration.)

 

I also did my own 'due diligence', and tried to find ANY information on the event. I was not able to find anything at all, not even a casual mention of it. So, you whine at me about 'citing sources', but, here you are, giving him a pass on it? Holy double standards Batman!

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

 

Also, I note the distinct absence of anything to substantiate your claim on the Missouri man. As I can't find anything about that type of incident, at all, it leads me to believe that you are pulling a Trump, and inventing your own version of reality.

 

It appears that you don't like the taste of your own medicine. You are objectively a serial offender when it comes to not posting sources to substantiate your claims, even when you are politely asked to and even when it would improve the quality of the discussion.

 

What's worse is that you routinely ignore or casually dismiss sources posted by someone else in support of their points if they contradict your opinion.

 

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

 

Well, lets have a look at his claim then. He claims the event in question happened in the 70's, (I do believe) and it was the driving factor behind a smoking ban in parking structures. However, looking at various state laws on this topic, for the most part, they weren't put into place until late in the first decade of the 21st century. Seems to me, that waiting 30 plus years to implement a law, implies that the event did NOT, in fact, have any influence whatever on those laws.

 

Also, you can flick a lit cigarette into a pool of gasoline, and it will put the cigarette out, not start a fire. Unless conditions are 'just right'..... No fire. No explosion. Nothing. A quick hiss, and the cigarette is out.

 

And then we also have the dramatic changes in automotive fuel system designs in those 30 years. Gas tanks, up until the mid 70's, were freely vented into the atmosphere, then emissions laws came along, and that was no longer allowed. Vapor recovery systems appeared, and the fuel system became a closed system. Vapors were captured, and then later vented into the engines intake, and burned off. So, the likelihood of there being sufficient gasoline vapor in the air to ignite, are vanishingly small. If the system is not working properly, the vehicles computer will notify the operator, and in states that have inspections, you are REQUIRED to have it repaired, or, stop driving that particular vehicle. (unable to renew registration.)

 

I also did my own 'due diligence', and tried to find ANY information on the event. I was not able to find anything at all, not even a casual mention of it. So, you whine at me about 'citing sources', but, here you are, giving him a pass on it? Holy double standards Batman!

 

 

Once again, HeyYou has either twisted what I said to justify a lie, or has made assumptions and published them as facts. Here is what I actually said.

 

The "No Smoking" signs in the parking garage are a requirement of Insurance companies who are concerned that some idiot with a cigarette will ignite the fumes from an uncapped gas tank. Kinda like what happened in Missouri.

 

The insurance company sued the smoker (who was violating the law by smoking in a no smoking area) to recover the several millions they had to pay, and won. Now the smoker pays the state a set amount each month, and they forward the payment to the Insurance company. If the smoker misses a payment, the state steps in and seizes all the smokers assets, and garners his wages, because he still has to pay.

 

So you go suck that butt in the parking garage. Maybe we'll get lucky.

Where in any of my comment is a date mentioned, referenced, or implied? Yet HeyYou states "He claims the event in question happened in the 70's, (I do believe) ...". I made no such claim, yet HeyYou assumes a date and then attributes that date to me. HeyYou is presenting his assumption as a fact and, in short, is lying.

 

Where in my comment does it reference or imply anything about "smoking bans in parking structures"? Yet HeyYou continues from the quoted material above "... and it was the driving factor behind a smoking ban in parking structures". HeyYou fabricated that out of thin air, and, once again, is lying.

 

People, that is two false or misleading elements in just HeyYou's first sentence. Now, go back and read the entire exchange between HeyYou and myself. You decide if HeyYou should be believed, or is worthy of your trust.

Edited January 30, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[HeyYou]

Well, how about this then.

 

 

You assume that because you can't find something, it must not exist, and then publish your assumption as truth. Either out of deliberate or actual ignorance, you ignore the reality that events occurred before the internet and were recorded on sheets of paper. It is simply easier for you to assume others are like you and fabricate their own truth.

Ok, so, the internet came about in around 1985 or so.

 

Still and all, insurance company requirements are not law. Laws weren't passed until the stated time frame. I am not going to spend any more time researching insurance requirements for parking structures, as I have better things to do with my time. Not to mention they will vary as widely as state laws, and their implementation. (I can't find anything on a federal requirement. I suspect there isn't one, and the fed leaves it to the states.)

 

So, you did indeed imply a timeframe for said event. I was just off by a few years.

[ScytheBearer]

Well, how about this then.

 

 

You assume that because you can't find something, it must not exist, and then publish your assumption as truth. Either out of deliberate or actual ignorance, you ignore the reality that events occurred before the internet and were recorded on sheets of paper. It is simply easier for you to assume others are like you and fabricate their own truth.

Ok, so, the internet came about in around 1985 or so.

 

Still and all, insurance company requirements are not law. Laws weren't passed until the stated time frame. I am not going to spend any more time researching insurance requirements for parking structures, as I have better things to do with my time. Not to mention they will vary as widely as state laws, and their implementation. (I can't find anything on a federal requirement. I suspect there isn't one, and the fed leaves it to the states.)

 

So, you did indeed imply a timeframe for said event. I was just off by a few years.

Again with the assumptions.

 

You assume that the law which was used to win the case against the smoker was about smoking in a garage. But alas, that assumption is wrong and you have again published your erroneous assumption as fact. The law the insurance company used to win their case was one which criminalized the creation of a public safety hazard which had the potential to cause death or injury.

 

Even though you like to act like you know everything, you don't know s***. But instead of asking questions for clarification, you make assumptions, publish your assumptions as fact and come to false conclusions like "you did indeed imply a timeframe for said event". Another published falsehood based on false assumptions.

 

Do you ever even try to find the truth? All all I see is you making assumptions and publishing your false assumptions as fact.

 

Now, put the block back in place and go away. Your infantile insistence of righteousness and your blaming me for your bad assumptions are getting tiresome. For once in our miserable live, take responsibility for our own behaviors and actions.

Edited January 31, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[gnarly1]

 

 

<bleached>

Reading comprehension fail.

 

I was not addressing you, I was replying to HeyYou and you can clearly see this from the quote I excerpted.

*Ahem*... this is a public forum, not Private Messenger,

where any viewers can and may reply, so he has every right.

 

This is a non sequitur but not only that, I'm sure that even you, given you seem to struggle with logic, can understand the utter chaos which would ensue if anyone could arbitrarily decide that even though someone was not replying to them, they could assert the right to act as if they were.

 

A right that you just made up.

 

But since we're just arbitrarily making up rights with no thought given to how ridiculous they are, I'd like to assert my right to come over to your house every Wednesday at 2pm so I can urinate on your keyboard. Note I'm being courteous and letting you know the date and time so that you can avoid splashes. Unless of course, you're into watersports.... :dance:

 

Then again, upon reading the last sentence of your signature, your reply above makes total sense.....

Edited February 9, 2022 by gnarly1

[gnarly1]

So, you whine at me about 'citing sources', but, here you are, giving him a pass on it? Holy double standards Batman!

Please provide the source for me "giving him a pass on it". Nothing in my post referred to 'him'.

 

Not only are you clearly a hypocrite (which you didn't can't deny because it's easily verified on this forum) you also attribute to people things they did not write and views they do not hold.

 

You could have legitimately called me out for not providing sources for my claims about your double standard, but I suspect you didn't as it could've got rather embarrassing for you.

 

And by your own standard above, you would've then been whining at me for not 'citing sources'.

 

See how silly it is to try to belittle someone's comment by describing it as whining.....?

 

And of course, if you were to legitimately call someone out for being a hypocrite, it wouldn't be whining, would it.....

[HeyYou]

 

So, you whine at me about 'citing sources', but, here you are, giving him a pass on it? Holy double standards Batman!

Please provide the source for me "giving him a pass on it". Nothing in my post referred to 'him'.

 

Not only are you clearly a hypocrite (which you didn't can't deny because it's easily verified on this forum) you also attribute to people things they did not write and views they do not hold.

 

You could have legitimately called me out for not providing sources for my claims about your double standard, but I suspect you didn't as it could've got rather embarrassing for you.

 

And by your own standard above, you would've then been whining at me for not 'citing sources'.

 

See how silly it is to try to belittle someone's comment by describing it as whining.....?

 

And of course, if you were to legitimately call someone out for being a hypocrite, it wouldn't be whining, would it.....

 

Quite the word salad there. Congrats. And here I thought (hoped) this thread was dead. But no, you have to come along, sling more insults, and 'justify' your position. Ya know what? I am just not going to bother with you any more. You take this 'debates' forum FAR too seriously. Which apparently, you simply can't comprehend that I.... Do not. So, enjoy the air up there on your high horse. Maybe invest in an oxygen bottle distributor?

[gnarly1]

Quite the word salad there.

Given you attributed to me something I did not write, 'word salad' would be a more accurate term for your post.

 

But an even more apt term would be: outright fabrication.

 

But no, you have to come along, sling more insults, and 'justify' your position.

As I pointed out to you in another thread, calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult. It is the word used to describe someone who prescribes behaviour that they themselves fail to adhere to.

 

If you find it insulting, perhaps it's because it hit the mark.

 

Bullseye!

[zcul]

Thread locked for the time being, before the discussion gets out of hand and turns into name-calling. This is not the GMAD area.
Staff Ref.